The Georgia situation

[rwmct]

Hmmm, I expected a thread on this before. Some random thoughts:

1) This thing has "humiliate the USA" written all over it. Payback for cozying up to Georgia in the first place. Pay back for the whole Yugoslavia thing. Payback for Poland and the rest of the former Eastern European states that used to be under Moscow's thumb.

2) And it IS humiliating. The Russians are pounding the crap out of one of our allies, and we can't do jack about it. We are tied up, and in no position to even influence this. I hope Bush can find a way to get some anti aircraft missiles in there and other arms that can inflict some losses on the Russians, but I doubt it. We look impotent and toothless, because we ARE impotent and toothless. One of the things that has bothered me about Iraq for some time is that we are so tied up there that nobody needs to fear us anymore. The Russians certainly don't, at least, not in an area right on their doorstep where our naval power cannot come into play..

3) Opening step in Moscow getting some of the former "satellites" BACK under its thumb.

4) Obama is staking out some dangerous ground here. He is absolutely correct that the status quo ante, with Russian so called "peacekeepers" on Georgian territory is a joke, but his statement that it is unacceptable to go back there, and real international peacekeepers are needed, may come back to haunt him. The Russians look like they are staying to me. Issue is: what is the next President prepared to do about it.

[Jean-Paul]

Thanks for bringing this up. I have actually been listening to news stories about it and I agree that we look impotent.

I will have to dig waaaay back to the early threads on the Iraq war, but I actually lamented our bogging ourselves down there for this very reason... Lack of military preparedness. Not to mention that Bush's "axis of evil" comment just put all of those members of the axis on alert to rush to arms. Everyone knows we're caught with our pants down now.

I would like some more information though if you have it. My understanding so far is that Georgia attacked first in an attempt to lay claim on some border region, which makes me wonder why we feel like we should jump into this fray anyway. They're big boys. They know Russia's military capabilities (one would hope).

Do you have a link to Obama's complete quote on the situation? I'm not particularly informed on his say on the matter.

[Mark57]

Originally Posted by rwmct

Issue is: what is the next President prepared to do about it.

The fact is that, despite all the noise from Bush and McCain to the contrary, our "ally" was wrong. Georgia attacked South Ossetia, killing a lot of civilians many of whom are Russian citizens or hold Russian passports. Russia is going to take South Ossetia back at this point no matter what we or NATO or the UN wants to say about it. And if we or NATO or the UN makes too much noise about it they might take all of Georgia back as well.

The absolutely stupidest thing any American president could possibly do at this point is to attempt to intercede. I hope Bush isn't stupid enough to do anything like "inflict some losses on the Russians", but at this point the only thing we don't know about his stupidity is it's true depth.

[Mark57]

A pretty good article about the background:

Roots of Georgia-Russia clash run deep | csmonitor.com

Roots of Georgia-Russia clash run deep
The war broadened Monday as Russian troops moved beyond rebel provinces into Georgia proper.
By Fred Weir | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
and Paul Rimple | Contributor in Tbilisi, Georgia
and John Wendle | Contributor in Vladikavkaz, North Ossetia

from the August 12, 2008 edition

MOSCOW - Ancient ethnic strife, fanned by East-West rivalry and Moscow's growing regional ambitions, lie behind the war over Georgia's breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, where Russian troops opened a second front Monday.

For dozens of young Ossetian men lined up at a Russian Army recruitment center in the North Ossetian capital of Vladikavkaz, the conflict is a replay of endless clashes with their traditional foe: Georgia. For Georgians, whose forces are retrenching after failing to retake the separatist province of South Ossetia, the war appears just the latest futile effort to unite their country against what they see as Moscow's neocolonial designs.

US and Russian diplomats, who sparred angrily over the crisis at a United Nations session Sunday, were falling back into the language and passions of their long, bitter cold-war standoff.

"This conflict has very deep and complicated roots," says analyst Alexei Malashenko at the Carnegie Center in Moscow. "It was Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili who started it, hoping to redraw the whole situation with one sweeping action. But if it goes on for much longer, it is likely that there will be no winners, and Russia will suffer very badly, too."

The war, which began with a lightning Georgian offensive Friday aimed at ending secessionist South Ossetia's 16-year-old de facto independence, prompted a Russian military intervention which, by Monday, had put Russian forces in full control of the region. The West worries that Moscow's true goal is to subjugate pro-West Georgia and overthrow its democratically elected president, Mr. Saakashvili. In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece on Monday, Saakashvili warned that if Moscow's drive succeeds, Western influence in the region will be defunct.

Hours after President Dmitri Medvedev asserted Monday that Russia's limited "peace mission" in South Ossetia was nearly over, Russian troops rolled into Georgia proper. The move into the western town of Senaki, which lies well over Georgia's buffer zone with Abkhazia, opened a second front in the conflict. At press time, Russia had also moved into the Georgian town of Gori, just outside South Ossetia.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown urged Russia Monday to accept a cease-fire that Georgia had signed, saying there is "no justification for continued Russian military action in Georgia, which threatens the stability of the entire region and risks a humanitarian catastrophe."

Russian experts say that Moscow seeks to blunt US influence in the region and halt the eastward expansion of NATO into the former Soviet Union. Beyond that, it is likely to become the main arbiter of disputes in its area, including Georgia.

"Russia is moving toward an analagous role [vis-à-vis South Ossetia] to that which the US plays when it, for example, guarantees the security of Taiwan against attack by mainland China," says Vladimir Zharikhin, deputy director of the official Institute of Commonwealth of Independent States Studies in Moscow. "But this situation is beginning to look too much like a direct clash between Russia and the US," which has strongly taken Georgia's side, he adds.

Whatever the outcome, the conflict has already inflamed old hatreds and its consequences seem likely to reverberate destructively around the entire multinational Caucasus region, which was conquered by Russia in the 19th century and later divvied into ethnically defined cantons by Soviet social engineers.

Why Ossetians want Georgia out

The Ossetians, who claim to have inhabited the same territory for centuries, say their nation was broken in two by Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, who awarded South Ossetia to the Georgian Soviet republic against the Ossetians' will. (Stalin also took away Abkhazia's independence and made it an autonomous republic within Georgia.) As the USSR was collapsing, Ossetians fought a brutal war of independence against Georgia, which ended in a three-way peacekeeping agreement in 1992. Under that deal, Russian, Georgian, and South Ossetian forces were to jointly guarantee security until a final settlement was reached.

The arrangement collapsed in a hail of artillery fire and bombs last Friday.

"This is an historical problem. My great-grandmother told me that in the 1920s she saw Georgians massacring the South Ossetians," says Gavril Guzitayev, one of many young Ossetian men gathered Monday at Vladikavkaz's main recruiting center. "She said they came in fast on horses and attacked with sabres."

Along with other young men waiting to sign up for the Russian army and fight in South Ossetia, Mr. Guzitayev says "after all this, I don't believe Ossetians and Georgians can live together.... I just want a machine gun, and to ... stand beside my brothers."

Many Georgians argue there that South Ossetia is actually the ancient Georgian territory of Samochablo, given by the Soviets to Ossetian settlers for aiding the Bolsheviks in crushing Georgian independence in the 1920s. They point out that Georgia, which emerged as a sovereign state from the ruins of the USSR in 1991, enjoys full rights to the territory under international law.

Georgia has offered limited autonomy to South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but both have declined. In 2006, South Ossetians voted overwhemingly for independence in a referendum, which Georgia denounced as illegal.

"Only the state has the right to grant independence to a territory," says Archil Gegeshidze, analyst with the independent Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies in Tbilisi. "The principle of self-determination is superseded by the right of the state."

Why Georgia wants South Ossetia back

Many Georgians say they still believe the only course is for South Ossetia to rejoin Georgia. "The nation has the right to control its territory," says Giorgi Margvelashvili, a researcher at the Georgian Institute of Public Affairs, a nongovernmental group in Tbilisi. "Reconciliation will be a long, painful process before we can find common ground, especially as one regional superpower wants us to remain enemies. Reaching understanding won't be done by politics, but by a human process."

Russia has accused Georgia of committing "genocide" in its assault on the rebel republic, which they say killed at least 2,000 civilians and displaced 34,000.

Western human rights monitors caution that it's too early to make any judgments about what happened. But Lev Ponomaryov, head of the Moscow-based Movement for Human Rights, says he hopes the West will hold Saakashvili's feet to the fire on this issue.

"I can't say whether this is a case of genocide, but it certainly is a humanitarian catastrophe," he says. "The methods Saakashvili used to establish constitutional order have to be condemned by the international community."


Georgia-Russia conflict: 2008 timeline

April 3 – NATO agrees that Georgia and Ukraine can one day join the alliance.

April 16 – Russia orders semiofficial ties with separatists in Georgian provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

April 20 – Georgian spy drone shot down over Abkhazia. UN later blames Russia.

April 29 – Russia sends extra troops to Abkhazia.

May 6 – Georgia says that move has brought them to brink of war.

July 8 – Russian fighter jets fly into Georgian airspace to "cool hotheads in Tbilisi."

Aug. 7 – Georgian troops invade South Ossetia after a truce with rebels breaks down.

Aug. 8 – Russia repels the assault.

Aug. 10 – Georgia proposes a cease-fire.

Aug. 11 – Russia rejects the cease-fire and issues an ultimatum to Georgian forces near Abkhazia to disarm or be attacked. Georgia rejects the demand. Russian troops move into Senaki, a city in Georgia proper.

Source: Reuters

[Patricia]

Originally Posted by Mark57

The fact is that, despite all the noise from Bush and McCain to the contrary, our "ally" was wrong. Georgia attacked South Ossetia, killing a lot of civilians many of whom are Russian citizens or hold Russian passports. Russia is going to take South Ossetia back at this point no matter what we or NATO or the UN wants to say about it. And if we or NATO or the UN makes too much noise about it they might take all of Georgia back as well.

The absolutely stupidest thing any American president could possibly do at this point is to attempt to intercede. I hope Bush isn't stupid enough to do anything like "inflict some losses on the Russians", but at this point the only thing we don't know about his stupidity is it's true depth.

So correct.

A quote from Bush regarding this:

"Russia has invaded a sovereign neighbouring state.... Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century.... We have no doubts about it. This is a deliberate attempt to destroy an entire country and change the regime."

And with that, we know exactly what Putin will say or would have said right back at Bush. We now can't even do a damn thing in regards to diplomacy. We're in a frickin' hole and it's our own damn fault.

Putin did what he did WHEN he did it since he knew full well no one could stop him - even the US.

[rwmct]

Originally Posted by Mark57

The fact is that, despite all the noise from Bush and McCain to the contrary, our "ally" was wrong. Georgia attacked South Ossetia, killing a lot of civilians many of whom are Russian citizens or hold Russian passports. Russia is going to take South Ossetia back at this point no matter what we or NATO or the UN wants to say about it. And if we or NATO or the UN makes too much noise about it they might take all of Georgia back as well.

The absolutely stupidest thing any American president could possibly do at this point is to attempt to intercede. I hope Bush isn't stupid enough to do anything like "inflict some losses on the Russians", but at this point the only thing we don't know about his stupidity is it's true depth.

The article in your second post refutes your first post. This is Georgian territory, which has been in the control of separatists backed by Russian forces, the so called "peacekeepers." The Russians were there to keep the Georgians from subduing the rebel territory.

I agree that the Russians are fixing to take back as much of Georgia as they can. One wonders what other parts of the former Soviet Union they wish to take back.

It is pretty obvious we have little to offer militarily as a counter. But I cannot disagree more with the comment about our not "making too much noise" about it." This is partly aimed at us, at reducing our influence in the region while we are busy elsewhere, and about getting the Russians back on the road to dominating the region again. We need to show that this kind of thing is costly, whether we do so militarily, economically, or in some other fashion.

Edit: I agree, by the way, that the Georgians should not have attached the rebel city. It was NOT a smart move. But it IS their city.

And there are ample grounds for opposing these kinds of separatist movements. As we have seen in the former Yugoslavia, there is tremendous potential for instability and chaos in these restive ethnic regions. Often, as here, the instability is enhanced by the policies of a neighboring country with whom there is an ethnic affinity.

[rwmct]

Originally Posted by Jean-Paul

Do you have a link to Obama's complete quote on the situation? I'm not particularly informed on his say on the matter.

Here is one of his statements:

Here is the campaign's Saturday night statement:

"Below is a statement from Sen. Barack Obama on Russia’s escalation of violence against Georgia:

“I just spoke separately with Secretary Rice and President Saakashvili about the grave crisis in Georgia. I told President Saakashvili that I was deeply concerned about the wellbeing of the people of Georgia.

“Over the last two days, Russia has escalated the crisis in Georgia through its clear and continued violation of Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. On Friday, Aug. 8, Russian military forces invaded Georgia. I condemn Russia’s aggressive actions and reiterate my call for an immediate ceasefire. Russia must stop its bombing campaign, cease flights of Russian aircraft in Georgian airspace, and withdraw its ground forces from Georgia. Both sides should allow humanitarian assistance to reach civilians in need. Russia also must end its cyber war against Georgian government websites. Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected.

“As I have said for many months, aggressive diplomatic action must be taken to reach a political resolution to this crisis, and to assure that Georgia’s sovereignty is protected. Diplomats at the highest levels from the United States, the European Union and the United Nations must become directly involved in mediating this military conflict and beginning a process to resolve the political disputes over the territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. A genuinely neutral mediator — not the Russian government — must begin a process of negotiations immediately.

“The situation in Georgia also requires the deployment of genuine international peacekeeping forces in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The current escalation of military conflict resulted in part from the lack of a neutral and effective peacekeeping force operating under an appropriate UN mandate. Russia cannot play a constructive role as peacekeeper. Instead, Russian actions in both South Ossetia and Abkhazia appear to be intended to preserve an unstable status quo.”

[Mark57]

Originally Posted by rwmct

The Russians were there to keep the Georgians from subduing the rebel territory.

My point is that this isn't just the Russian's fault, Georgia is just as much to blame and what they're doing is pretty bad based on most reports. So for us to simply condemn Russia as the only bad guy here and want to "inflict some losses on the Russians" is simply ignoring the facts and reality of the situation.

Originally Posted by from the article

Russia has accused Georgia of committing "genocide" in its assault on the rebel republic, which they say killed at least 2,000 civilians and displaced 34,000.

Western human rights monitors caution that it's too early to make any judgments about what happened. But Lev Ponomaryov, head of the Moscow-based Movement for Human Rights, says he hopes the West will hold Saakashvili's feet to the fire on this issue.

"I can't say whether this is a case of genocide, but it certainly is a humanitarian catastrophe," he says. "The methods Saakashvili used to establish constitutional order have to be condemned by the international community."

But so far all the West has to say about it is "bad Russia, bad". And of course Bush says "Stop!, or else I'll say stop again!" Yeah, that helps.

[RobLL]

It was not smart for the US to have so aggresively expanded NATO where it didn't belong and did not add to US security. This is payback, and of course it will hurt the US of A, and not the knuckleheads to devised the policiy of stupid expansion. Anyone with their head not up their bu**, would have spent some time as to how far we could push Russian. We seem to have had legitimate interests in Poland, and lesser interests in the Baltic three. But in any event we should have been as un-in their face as possible to Russian. Bush and his minions (string pullers) seemed to delight in embarassing the Russions. Stupid. Stupid beyond belief.

[rwmct]

Originally Posted by RobLL

It was not smart for the US to have so aggresively expanded NATO where it didn't belong and did not add to US security. This is payback, and of course it will hurt the US of A, and not the knuckleheads to devised the policiy of stupid expansion. Anyone with their head not up their bu**, would have spent some time as to how far we could push Russian. We seem to have had legitimate interests in Poland, and lesser interests in the Baltic three. But in any event we should have been as un-in their face as possible to Russian. Bush and his minions (string pullers) seemed to delight in embarassing the Russions. Stupid. Stupid beyond belief.

I can agree with some of the above, but I think it is naive to think that anything the Russians are doing now can be laid to the tone of our actions. Russian is flexing its muscles, as it has done to a lesser extent as to the Ukraine, as it has done big time in its own separatist region , Chechnya, whose desire for independence somehow does not strike the Russians as merited , unlike the separatists in Georgia.

Whether we tread lightly or not makes, IMO, little difference. Putin is concerned about power. Reestablishing the power of Russia is his goal. I would bet there are heads of state in numerous small countries in the region who are sleeping a little less soundly at present. They have more to worry bout than radiation poisoning.

[Jean-Paul]

"Russia has invaded a sovereign neighbouring state.... Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century.... We have no doubts about it. This is a deliberate attempt to destroy an entire country and change the regime."

Wow... The irony of those words coming from Bush's mouth. He's right though... What civilized nation would invade a sovereign nation and change the regime?

[Mark57]

Technically since they had the invasion of Iraq all planned out pre-2000, that's like, so 20th century.

[Jean-Paul]

LOL... Well alrighty then!

[Mark57]

Originally Posted by rwmct

I can agree with some of the above, but I think it is naive to think that anything the Russians are doing now can be laid to the tone of our actions.

I think it's even more naive to think that our pushing for NATO membership of former Soviet satellite states and "missile defense systems" on Russia's borders can be considered as anything but instigation.

And Putin just let Cheney know that his continued instigation is going to be dealt with very swiftly and very harshly. And the next president gets to pick up the shattered pieces of an extremely failed foreign policy. Yeah Bush.

[RobLL]

rc - I think we, like them, have had some carrots and some sticks. Not enough to control lots of situations, but at the same time significantly more than none. In situations like that you don't waste your leverage where it is not critical. And maybe your are right, and our leverage would never have had any influence. We will never know.

[gregl515]

I found this story and was fascinated with the incredible lack of planning and analysis that resulted in this:

The World’s Largest Mall Offers a Lesson | OPEN Forum Blog: An American Express Blog

[Mark57]

I just read that three times and still can't for the life of me figure out what it has to do with Russia, Georgia or South Ossetia. But it was a fun story nonetheless.

[kuri]

Did anyone else catch McCain playing tough guy and making noises about punishing Russia?

Does anyone think he believes his own bullshit?

Or does it all come back to his foreign policy advisor/lobbyist for Georgia?

John McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, has for years been an essential conduit for the relationship between the United States and Georgia, the former Soviet republic that has been pounded by the Russian military for the past week.

He was Georgia's top lobbyist in Washington until earlier this year. He has taken leave from his lobbying firm, Orion Strategies, but he is still listed as president of in the firm, which has received nearly $900,000 from the Embassy of Georgia since 2004.

Scheunemann is tight with the Bush administration and many neoconservatives in Washington's foreign policy establishment. A former aide to Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), Scheunemann also has easy access to lawmakers like McCain, whose office Scheunemann has lobbied directly in recent years.

For the Georgia government back in Tbilisi, having Scheunemann on the payroll in Washington has been empowering.

"Randy Scheunemann is at a vital nexus...and it made Tbilisi feel as if it was wedged into the back pocket of Dick Cheney," Steve Clemons, head of the foreign policy program at the New America Foundation in Washington, told TPMmuckraker today.

Scheunemann's primary mission on behalf of Georgia was getting the Russian border state on track for NATO membership, according to Scheunemann's filings with the Department of Justice database maintained under the Foreign Agent Registration Act.

NATO membership would include a mutual defense pact that could legally draw the U.S. and the rest of Europe into a conflict between Georgia and its neighbor to the north.

Of course, Russia loathes that idea and even some Americans think it's unnecessarily risky and provocative. But pushing NATO further eastward and ultimately up to the Russian border has long been a key mission for hawkish Republicans and neoconservatives.

The Bush administration has been a big proponent of Georgia's NATO bid, despite resistance in Europe. Bush visited Georgia in 2005 and has been especially chummy with Georgia's president, Mikheil Saakashvili, the young Georgetown-educated pro-American leader.

It sure made for great rhetoric -- casting Georgia as a beacon of spreading democracy and freedom.

But now, since violent clashes have erupted between Georgia and Russia, the Bush administration is taking some blame for not reigning in its small and militarily weak ally.

After all, it was the Georgians who catalyzed this week's bloodshed when its military mounted an incursion into South Ossetia and confronted the Russian troops there (prompting many to ask: what were they thinking?).

"I would say Georgia has a very good PR team. The U.S. and the Georgian government built a very close relationship and it was too close for the good of either party. . . The U.S. allowed Saakashvili to get too puffed up and think he could fly too close to the sun," Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a professor at Georgetown University, said in an interview today.

Few on this side of the Atlantic doubt that Russia's response was brutish and heavy handed. But the Bush Administration is taking a lot of criticism for possibly sending mixed signals to the Georgian government about our level of commitment and support for the tiny nation. (Those critiques are, for example, spelled out here, here and here.)

Georgia was until this week the third-largest contributor of troops to Iraq after the U.S. and Great Britain, where its roughly 2,000 troops were welcomed by the Bush administration.

State Department officials insist they were clear that Georgia should not expect U.S. military support in case of a clash with Russia.

Sure, that was the official line. But we can't help but wonder, what did Scheunemann tell the Georgians? While they were paying his firm hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to help build a strong relationship with Washington, how did he characterize the level of support Georgia might expect?

Scheunemann's influence, either spoken or unspoken, emboldened Saakashvili, Clemons said.

"Saakashvili overplayed his hand. He believed he had the world's best lobbyist helping him not only with Cheney-land. . . but that he also had this wedge into the nerve cell of John McCain, who he may have believed would be the ultimate victor over Barack Obama."

[gregl515]

Originally Posted by Mark57

I just read that three times and still can't for the life of me figure out what it has to do with Russia, Georgia or South Ossetia. But it was a fun story nonetheless.

I though I put it in a separate thread.

[rwmct]

Originally Posted by Mark57

I think it's even more naive to think that our pushing for NATO membership of former Soviet satellite states and "missile defense systems" on Russia's borders can be considered as anything but instigation.

I did not disagree with the above. I merely pointed out that the tone with which we did this was likely of little moment. Had we gone about this with the softest touch imaginable, it would have made little difference to Putin.

Edit: well, rather than instigation, you could look at it as putting into place the tools needed to forestall the USSR from rising again. Of course, it does little good to put up walls if one is not going to man them. With our forces, our concentration, occupied elsewhere, there was an opening, and Putin was clearly waiting for it.

[RobLL]

The Bush administration's feckless response to the Russian invasion of Georgia. - By Fred Kaplan - Slate Magazine

A good article from Kaplan at Slate magazine, a lot of hard information, as well as opinion.

A couple other sites mentioned that Putin said he would get revenge for the formal separation of Kosovo from Serbia. Russia seemed to tolerate, unhappily de facto separation, but the revenge came over the de jurum separation.

[Mark57]

Yeah, the Slate article was really good, and points out the randomness and irrationality of our current foreign policy. All that seems to matter to them is ideology and the neocon worldview.

[Mark57]

Originally Posted by rwmct

I did not disagree with the above. I merely pointed out that the tone with which we did this was likely of little moment. Had we gone about this with the softest touch imaginable, it would have made little difference to Putin.

Edit: well, rather than instigation, you could look at it as putting into place the tools needed to forestall the USSR from rising again. Of course, it does little good to put up walls if one is not going to man them. With our forces, our concentration, occupied elsewhere, there was an opening, and Putin was clearly waiting for it.

Or, you could even call it a reckless and irresponsible foreign policy that has had the failed outcome that it's perpetrators were warned about but chose to ignore.

[RobLL]

The Belgravia Dispatch: McCain: Let's Compound the Blunder!

[Mark57]

Thanks Rob. I had never heard of Gregory Djerejian before now, but I can honestly say that I've never read anything that I agree with word for word more than that post. Bush has fucked things up royally, and McCain just wants to compound those fuckups exponentially.

Obama is in a bad place on this one. If he attempts to use reason and intelligence he's going to get smeared by the RNC and McCain for being too pacifist, but he is seriously fucking up by going along with their "poor Georgia, bad Russia" line.

[rwmct]

Originally Posted by Mark57

Thanks Rob. I had never heard of Gregory Djerejian before now, but I can honestly say that I've never read anything that I agree with word for word more than that post. Bush has fucked things up royally, and McCain just wants to compound those fuckups exponentially.

Obama is in a bad place on this one. If he attempts to use reason and intelligence he's going to get smeared by the RNC and McCain for being too pacifist, but he is seriously fucking up by going along with their "poor Georgia, bad Russia" line.

I dunno about that. I dunno about the "poor Georgia" part but I agree with the bad [edit: from our pespective] Russia part. The Ruskies are back on the rise. The next President is going to have to deal with both this and China. Looks like National Security and foreign policy are back on the agenda for the election.

[Jean-Paul]

You may be right about Russia. What can we do about it though? We're too busy re-engineering the Middle East.

Our debt to China and Saudi Arabia (trillions to each) doesn't help matters. We haven't paid a dime in taxes for all of this, just borrow borrow borrow, and our children's children will have to pay for it. It hasn't done our country any good at all, hasn't made us more secure, hasn't stemmed terrorism (rather it has played into their hands and created a recruiting machine), hasn't helped with the price of oil, and has over burdened our military to the point that we are not properly prepared for a real threat. We have effectively hamstrung ourselves. This is why you don't enter wars of choice. Bush was so eager to foist our troops upon the ME that he (and his admin) took his eye off the ball with what was going on in the rest of the world.

Hopefully this won't turn into anything big, but it does reveal our weakness to the world if there is a real threat lurking.

[Mark57]

Originally Posted by rwmct

I dunno about that. I dunno about the "poor Georgia" part but I agree with the bad [edit: from our pespective] Russia part. The Ruskies are back on the rise. The next President is going to have to deal with both this and China. Looks like National Security and foreign policy are back on the agenda for the election.

Deal with what, exactly? Did some Christian God pronounce America to be the One True Super Power or something?


Great. Fucking Great. The fucking Douchebag in Chief is right now announcing that he's sending military units into Georgia. I'm starting to think that this was the plan all along, and explains why they were egging on the little moron in Georgia to attack the separatists. What does he hope to accomplish? We're going to "teach Russia a lesson"? Or are we going to slap them back into place?

Edit: I was typing this when the Idiot In Chief came on TV and I lost my train of thought. Yes, National Security and Foreign Policy should be the top issues in this election. Should we continue with Bush's failed policies? Or should we actually put real policies in place to actually improve our security, and a foreign policy that's a little more substantial than "stop that or I'll hit you"?

[Jean-Paul]

Originally Posted by Mark57

Great. Fucking Great. The fucking Douchebag in Chief is right now announcing that he's sending military units into Georgia. I'm starting to think that this was the plan all along, and explains why they were egging on the little moron in Georgia to attack the separatists. What does he hope to accomplish? We're going to "teach Russia a lesson"? Or are we going to slap them back into place?

I just scanned the news on line and I can't seem to find anything about this. All I saw was that he was sending in Condi. Do you possibly have a link?

[Mark57]

He was on CNBC live, I don't see anything on news wires yet. He's sending a "humanitarian mission" comprised of military units, including air support.

Here's the link: Bush accuses Russia over Georgia cease-fire - CNN.com

President Bush also said U.S. Defense Robert Gates will oversee a humanitarian mission to Georgia involving aircraft and Naval forces.

The mission will be "vigorous and ongoing," he said. It was not immediately clear when the mission will begin.

So a likely scenario is that Saakashvili will feel emboldened by the US military presence and try to kick Russia in the kneecap again. US forces will become engaged, and we'll enter a shooting war with Russia, on their immediate southern border. Yeah, that's playing it smart.


Lots of conflicting information. Saakashvili says Russian tanks are overrunning Gori, but journalists in Gori say "Huh? What tanks?".